As a senior representative of a modern and enlightened political party founded upon the principle of non-sectarian meritocracy, why does he consider it acceptable even to joke about murdering a Christian simply because they happen to be orthodox in their beliefs and opposed to 'gay marriage'?

Would it be acceptable to joke about about murdering a Muslim who happened to believe the same?

Or murdering a homosexual who opposed the traditional doctrine of the Church?

"Do you think your performance on Have I Got News For You a short while ago was appropriate and professional given your current involvement in the MPs expenses scandal? Do you think that this is why Conservative Party members now rate you very negatively on the Conservative Home survey?"

Is there any particular valid reason/explanation/excuse that you would care to share with the Taxpayer as to why you have yet to announce that you will not stand at the next election on account of your shameless and disgraceful plundering of the public purse?

Or are you a just a poor, misunderstood 'victim' of the system?

Remember, as you contemplate how to spin this, that the following are no longer acceptable or adequate:

1. Saying sorry;2. I'm paying it back;3. It was in accordance with the rules

In particular we would all like to know on what basis these things were, item by item, necessary to enable you to be an MP.

He sits on the House of Commons Commission. Why did the Commission fight so vigorously against disclosure of expenses claims under FOI, from as far back as 2002? Did the measures the Commission took have his party's support?

Because she paid her taxes, my mother gets an old age pension of £95 a week. By dint of thrift she has a private income of just under £5,000 a year which means that her pension is clawed back by £45 a month. Why is my mother's income taxed so that MPs earning £68,000 a year can have free groceries worth £100 a week?

Is it right for someone who has income over and above an MP's salary - whether this be 'family' money, or otherwise - to still claim for utiity bills, rent or mortgage, especially when said 'second job' meant they had to live in London?

There must be a moral judgement to make - one that seems to have evaded quite a few MPs - as by claiming ACA it has meant their second job has been subsidised by the taxpayer.

Will the Tories do anything to reform public service pensions if they won the next election? With MPs receiving a pay off after being an MP, while ordinary workers have to work for up to between 30 - 40 years to earn a pittance of a pension, doesn't the buck stop with MPs to reform their own pensions provision to stay in accordance with the little guys on the street?

Given that pretty well all the questions posed so far severely challenge your morality and your judgement, please can you provide your justification for continuing in office as an MP and Shadow Leader of the House, and one good reason why you should not be voted out at the next election.

On Have I Got News For You, Alan Duncan boasted that the expenses system, which paid for his houses was "a wonderful system." Days later, the expenses scandal broke in the Telegraph and when Duncan's fiddles were reported, he said that the system was a bad one which needed to be changed.Why did he change his mind so quickly? Will he be apologising to those of us who were so appalled and insulted at that time?

And when we will be asked in England if we want our own Parliament?I double dare you.

Ask him how having his lawnmower mended (paid for by the taxpayer) assisted him in his Parliamentary duties. Is he the Conservative Party's Gardening Correspondent?

Then there's the £19.55 for office expenses - tea, coffee, biscuits and mints. Obviously a multi-millionaire like him can't put his hand in his own pocket for tea and bikkis. Why does he think the taxpayer should pay for them?

I'm a Conservative voter - and if he was my MP I wouldn't vote for him. How many people in his constituency does he think feel the same?

IF YOU WERE LEADER OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY, WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF MEMBERS OF YOUR SHADOW CABINET WERE FOUND TO HAVE USED TAXPAYERS MONEY FOR REASONS TOTALLY UNCONNECTED TO THEIR ROLE AS MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.